Author
Topic: Can Someone Explain This? (Read 31054 times)

However, Catholics accept Muslims as children of Abraham, and worshipers of the one true God, albeit it in a defective way.

Peace Deacon Lance,is this an official position of the Catholic church or your own opinion ? I am very surprised about the idea of including other sects and religions under the worship of the same God appears in the Catholic church. It is a pluralists idea which is more consistent with the New Age Phenomena and other sects, and I am surprised, in fact disappointed to find it in a Church of such heritage like the Catholic Church. I think that the Trinity in one God head is the fundamental idea in christianity, and denying it is very much denying the real God. Muslims don't believe in the Trinity.Also, the idea of Incarnation is also very fundamental to christian belief, and The Lord Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. How can a religion that denies the divinity of Christ be called worshipper of the true God ?

In addition, just the simple attributes of God and his characteristics in christianity is very much different than Islam. Our God is Love . In the Quran, you don't find the word Love at all. At all !!!!! Ever heard the phrase :" Our God is not their Allah". It is based on simple comparison of the characteristics of God and Allah in the Bible and Quran, Christian tradition and islamic tradition, respectively.

Small heresies begin with small ideas and usually when toleration exercised in the dogmas. The next step is that muslims, Hindos ( I respect Hinduism), Buddists ( I respect Buddism as well ) and all other religions are saved. It might be far now, but it will come one day if such ideas creep into the different churches.

Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

1) "Trying to excuse something" seems to indicate you think I support it.

2) I don't seriously think *anything* about Assisi since I have not read what went on there! I don't even have the vaguest notions of the proceedings. All I am calling for is for someone to find the record of the proceedings so we can get to the bottom of it. You have already painted me as your opponent in this issue but you will be surprised to see my come out against Assisi if I find sycretism occurred. And syncretism would be if every religion got its chance to teach its doctrines equally.

1) "Trying to excuse something" seems to indicate you think I support it.

No it doesn't, and I don't.

It simply sounded to me like you were making excuses for Assisi: saying the Pope preached to the pagans, asking whether the pagans actually prayed, etc.

That is not the same thing as supporting it.

If you supported it, you would have said you thought it was a good thing, a good idea, etc.

Quote

2) I don't seriously think *anything* about Assisi since I have not read what went on there! I don't even have the vaguest notions of the proceedings. All I am calling for is for someone to find the record of the proceedings so we can get to the bottom of it. You have already painted me as your opponent in this issue but you will be surprised to see my come out against Assisi if I find sycretism occurred. And syncretism would be if every religion got its chance to teach its doctrines equally.

anastasios

You addressed me by name (by screen name, at least) and offered correctives or contradiction to what I posted.

Maybe that's not opposition, but it sure is close, anyway.

But I think you are right in wanting to know what actually transpired at Assisi in 1986.

I think the impression of syncretism is almost as bad as actual syncretism.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

I wish to apologize to one and all for my tone in my posts. I responded to bigotry with bigotry which is never right. I used to find this forum a source for building up my faith in Christ but have found recently that it is more and more causing the Pharisee within me (which is I think within us all) to come to the surface. With this in mind I will refrain from posting here at least during this season of Lent as I want to be more of the Publican and less the Pharisee. My remarks should not be taken as an attack against any here, though I'm sure some will interpret them as such, but simply as my own thoughts on my own soul's state at this time.

I wish you all a solemn and recollected Great Lent and a Happy Pascha.

I cannot believe these posts from those of you sitting at your little computers in your comfortable little American 2004 lives about how you'd die before betraying Christianity.

I hate to break it to you but the majority of you would crack. That's basic human nature. People always crack under torture. Look at the persecutions of the Church over time, when faced with a life and death choice, most Christians betrayed their faith. Human beings have a natural instinct to save their lives.

I pray to God that I'm never in that situation but if I am I pray to God that He'll help me and I know that He'll have mercy on me if I give in.

Look at the pictures and then read the text. The Tibetan monk gave a speech and not a homily. The Buddhists were not praying in Church but in a room in a convent. The Orthodox, Catholics, and Anglicans--all Christians I presume--were praying together. The other non-monotheistic religions and yes, even the Moslems, were praying (to their respective Gods--I am assuming for courtesy's sake on OC.net that the Moslems don't pray to the same God we do) that religion not be used to excuse violence.

None of this offends me. I'm not fan of the post-V2 environment for many reasons including the state of the liturgy. Nevertheless, I'll take willingly some of this Novus Ordo religion if it means praying for peace and praying that one's faith not be used to commit violence upon others (of different religions).

As far as the Moslem God being a demon, this is neither dogma nor doctrine. I don't worship Allah. Neither do I kiss the Koran. Nonetheless I will respect a Moslem's belief if he says that his father is Abraham too (through Ishmael) whether or not Abraham truly is his father. If in the supposedly unlikely chance that Abraham is their father, however, then the Moslems worship Yahweh too, however imperfectly.

Anybody out there in OC.net land have a problem with praying with Jews? I don't. My maternal great-grandfather was a Sephardic Jew.

As far as what the Pope did or did not do . . . I was not there to see it. All I have to go on are newspaper articles, some less than complimentary descriptions of erstwhile Catholics like the SSPX et. al. who don't have anything nice to say about the Pontiff in the first place, and the occasional uninformed commenter here or there. No, I don't like knowing that a statue of the Buddha was placed on a Catholic altar even if it was removed appropriately right away by Catholic authorities. And the kissing the Koran bit . . . still puzzles me, confuses me, and even angers me!

I'm not sure (in charity of course and always with respect) that I always agree with Jennifer. But her recent comment about this subject is right on! I only wish that I had made that comment herein and elsewhere! And Anastasios is also one of the few individuals of late that has taken a moderate and objective look at these admittedly confusing and objectionable incidents. A little irenicism would not in any way jeopardize one's standings with one's faith and practice.

One thing we all might do well to consider. Talking is better than war, much better. I can speak with some experience having been to one of these unpleasant parties in my youth. So is praying. It wouldn't hurt to let others pray even in your own household just so long as you can take reasonable steps to ensure that others--including the enemies of your Faith--do not misunderstand your intentions and actions. Assissi II was sensitive to the problems arising unintentionally from Assissi I. Both Assissis however were carried out in the tradition of St. Francis who after all loved those "demon-worshipping" Moslems duing an age in which Islam and Christianity were at war with each other. So you might as well add the Seraphic Father to your complaints about JP-II.

Don't foget to beat up on the late Mother Teresa too! She was a Catholic Christian who allowed pagan ceremonies in her house of the dead. She ensured that those who died under her care were buried according to the religious customs of the deceased. Some of these ceremonies took place under a Catholic roof. This surely must make her complicit in the demon worship of the Hindus. Don't forget, if you consider Moslems to worship a demon God, this is even more so with the Hindus who worship a pantheon of gods/demons. I understand that they worship thousands of gods.

I cannot believe these posts from those of you sitting at your little computers in your comfortable little American 2004 lives about how you'd die before betraying Christianity.

I hate to break it to you but the majority of you would crack. That's basic human nature. People always crack under torture. Look at the persecutions of the Church over time, when faced with a life and death choice, most Christians betrayed their faith. Human beings have a natural instinct to save their lives.

I pray to God that I'm never in that situation but if I am I pray to God that He'll help me and I know that He'll have mercy on me if I give in.

What does the post above have to do with what is being discussed?

What, no one who has not himself been shot in the head or bludgeoned to death by a Muslim can criticize the Pope for both bowing to and kissing the Koran?

Was the Pope under duress, fearing for his life?

Is that your point?

Or did you mean most of us would have cracked under the pressure of knowing that journalists had their cameras trained upon us?

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

If in the supposedly unlikely chance that Abraham is their father, however, then the Moslems worship Yahweh too, however imperfectly.

There doesn't seem to be any historic continuity in Arab worship between the time of Ishmael and that of Muhammed (though Moslems claim otherwise), so I can only assume that Moslems worship a god fabricated by Muhammed.

If we live as people of God, there will be room for all nations in the Balkans and in the world. If we liken ourselves to Cain who killed his brother Abel, then the entire earth will be too small even for two people. The Lord Jesus Christ teaches us to be

Yes, and I will readily admit that I believe such attendance by Orthodox is WRONG. I think the point some of us were getting at is that no matter how outrageous whatever the Pope of Rome does RCs are reluctant to say it was wrong. Whereas if Orthodox bishops do anything out of the norm no one hestitates to say they think it was wrong. Look at the relationship of the Athonites since the calendar change with te EP for example.

The Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue (Pontificium Consilium pro Dialogo Inter Religiones) or, PCID, is a regular dicastery (Department) of the Roman Curia. It is tasked to foster, and to supervise, relations with members and groups of non-Christian religions as well as with those who are in any way endowed with religious feeling. (Pastor Bonus, 159)

It was created on May 19, 1964 and elevated to a curial department, with the ranked of a Pontifical Council, on June 28, 1988.

Is it wrong to have such an endeavor? How do you suppose to evangelize non-Christians like the Muslims, Hindus, and the Jews without showing respect for the indigenous beliefs of peoples?

The success of the Catholic Church in Hindu India in converting many to the Christian faith has been largely based on the Church's integration of some Hindu beliefs into the practice of Christianity.

The Catholic Church has evangelization in fement in large Muslim countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and in sub-Saharan Africa.

The Catholic Church is also into Burma, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Vietnam, Laos, Thailand, Tibet, Mongolia, Japan, and China (!) where Shintoism and Buddhism are the principal religions of the region.

This explains the presence of non-Christians in Assissi, who are invited, as a gesture of goodwill for the tolerated presence of Catholics in those countries, to offer a common and communal prayer for World Peace!

Not bad, if you are willing to grasp the meaning and implications of such inter-religious "joint" ceremonies.

The success of the Catholic Church in Hindu India in converting many to the Christian faith has been largely based on the Church's integration of some Hindu beliefs into the practice of Christianity.

Perhaps in modern times, but I am curious: are you sure it is the integration of Hindu beliefs that is responsible for this, or do you mean the integration of certain Hindu practices? I would've thought the latter.

Logged

"Do not tempt the Mor thy Mod."

Mor no longer posts on OCNet. He follows threads, posts his responses daily, occasionally starts threads, and responds to private messages when and as he wants. But he really isn't around anymore.

I cannot believe these posts from those of you sitting at your little computers in your comfortable little American 2004 lives about how you'd die before betraying Christianity.

I hate to break it to you but the majority of you would crack. That's basic human nature. People always crack under torture. Look at the persecutions of the Church over time, when faced with a life and death choice, most Christians betrayed their faith. Human beings have a natural instinct to save their lives.

I pray to God that I'm never in that situation but if I am I pray to God that He'll help me and I know that He'll have mercy on me if I give in.

I don't see anyone saying anything about what they would do in a situation, only what should be done. Except in the case of ridiculously egotistical people, the two things are not necessarily the same. To say that it's proper to die before betraying Christianity, or something of the sort is not in any way to say that you personally would die. Unless you're claiming to be absolutely perfect, the fact that you might or even would do something is no evidence that doing that something would be right.

Yes, and I will readily admit that I believe such attendance by Orthodox is WRONG. I think the point some of us were getting at is that no matter how outrageous whatever the Pope of Rome does RCs are reluctant to say it was wrong. Whereas if Orthodox bishops do anything out of the norm no one hestitates to say they think it was wrong. Look at the relationship of the Athonites since the calendar change with te EP for example.

What are you talking about? Every RC on this thread has said that what the Pope did was wrong. He received a tremendous amount of criticism for this from both conservative and trad circles. I remember this issue being debated to death.

Some RCs refuse to believe that it's true and given the source that's reasoanble but nobody is "reluctant to say it was wrong."

The success of the Catholic Church in Hindu India in converting many to the Christian faith has been largely based on the Church's integration of some Hindu beliefs into the practice of Christianity.. . .

AmdG

What specific Hindu beliefs? I think perhaps it is the integration of Hindu culture into the Catholic faith. Vatican 2 and related post-Conciliar policies and documents talk about inculturation. I don't think that the Pope would allow prayers to Vishnu, et. al., in the liturgy.

We Orthodox need to recall the "glassiness" of our own house in this regard. Didn't the late Patriarch Parthenios on a couple of occasions state that we should honor Mohammed as a prophet? The Pope kissing the Koran was at best an ambiguous act subject to various interpretations, but the Patriarch's statements about Mohammed and Islam were way out of line.

What specific Hindu beliefs? I think perhaps it is the integration of Hindu culture into the Catholic faith. Vatican 2 and related post-Conciliar policies and documents talk about inculturation. I don't think that the Pope would allow prayers to Vishnu, et. al., in the liturgy.

Jim C.

Nevermind Amadeus. I posted my remarks before reading the rest of this thread. You have already commented on this vis-a-vis other posts.

We Orthodox need to recall the "glassiness" of our own house in this regard. Didn't the late Patriarch Parthenios on a couple of occasions state that we should honor Mohammed as a prophet? The Pope kissing the Koran was at best an ambiguous act subject to various interpretations, but the Patriarch's statements about Mohammed and Islam were way out of line.

James, you are correct. But the athonites (and others) were greatly upset for that and clamored for the immediated deposing of the patriach. Can't depose an RCC Pope!

Unfortunately, the wise "clamor" of the monks of the Holy Mountain went thoroughly unheeded, and the Patriarch of Alexandria, who made such heretical statements, remained securely in office until the day he died. What Patriarch Parthenos said was indeed quite heretical and an insult to all the holy martyrs who died and were tortured under the Islamic yoke. I tend to agree with those Orthodox posters who have said that we Orthodox need to be careful about our own precious glass house before casting rocks at the RC house. We Orthodox have our own ecumenistic endeavors that we've been involved in. Even a quick perusal of the photos that Frobie has provided us will reveal the numerous Orthodox hierarchs that were involved in the Assisi event(s). And my goodness, why are we Orthodox STILL involved with the WCC?

No...I think we have our own cobwebs to clean up before we start smugly pointing out similar cobwebs in the RCC.

I think the RCC needs to re-examine the establish norms regarding the Papacy especially with JPII's illness and condition. I do think his condition does effect his thought processes. I would suggest to them take a look on how the East would address a Patriarch with the same illness.

james @ the fork in the road

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.

We Orthodox need to recall the "glassiness" of our own house in this regard. Didn't the late Patriarch Parthenios on a couple of occasions state that we should honor Mohammed as a prophet? The Pope kissing the Koran was at best an ambiguous act subject to various interpretations, but the Patriarch's statements about Mohammed and Islam were way out of line.

I don't think our house is so glassy in this regard.

We don't place all of our ecclesiastical eggs in one basket, and we don't make excuses for patriarchs who betray the faith.

Take your own willingness to mention Parthenios' error, for example. Obviously, you don't view him as sacrosanct or above criticism.

When an Orthodox leader does something like that, it is the Orthodox people who rise up in protest, although perhaps not as much as we should.

If a photo of the EP or the MP or any other Orthodox cleric kissing the Koran appeared tomorrow, I think we Orthodox would be the very first ones calling for his ouster.

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.- Pope St. Hormisdas

At the rate the Moslems are increasing in numbers in Italy through immigration and making babies, your statement will likely no longer be true in 50 to 150 years!

This is no laughing matter, it is indeed very sad that Europe sold its heritage with such a cheap price to the muslims. I wonder whether the efforts of Charles Martel to push back the barbarians in 732 a.d. in the battle of Tours were useless, as his descendents betray their ancestor now so easily.

Quote

Can't depose an RCC Pope

Is this a sure thing

I think the discussion is basically whether the Pope of Rome can sin, is fallable or not. Let us focus on that.

Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

Unfortunately, the wise "clamor" of the monks of the Holy Mountain went thoroughly unheeded, and the Patriarch of Alexandria, who made such heretical statements, remained securely in office until the day he died. What Patriarch Parthenos said was indeed quite heretical and an insult to all the holy martyrs who died and were tortured under the Islamic yoke.

Is Patriarch Parthenos the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Alexandria ? When did he held office ? I am Coptic Orthodox, lived a good portion of my life between Alexadria and Cairo in Egypt, never ever heard of such incident which would have received its share of publicity in our Islamic Media. Granted that the Chalcedonian are a very small minority in Egypt, it would still be major news.

Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

are you sure it is the integration of Hindu beliefs that is responsible for this, or do you mean the integration of certain Hindu practices?

I don't see a problem in intergating a culture into the liturgy , for example. Different languages used in the liturgy in different churches in various countries is a cultural incorporation into the practice. That is normal and is alright as long as the substance of faith is sound.

Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

Nonetheless I will respect a Moslem's belief if he says that his father is Abraham too (through Ishmael) whether or not Abraham truly is his father. If in the supposedly unlikely chance that Abraham is their father, however, then the Moslems worship Yahweh too, however imperfectly.

Most of the Arabs are the descendents of Abraham, but there is a disconitunity in their faith. There has been some Arabs who worshipped the God of Abraham, called "Hanifa" or "saba'iens'', but they were infidels in the eyes of Muhamed because they did not accept Islam.There have been also some Jews and Christians in the Arabic Penninsula, all driven out or killed in the time of Muhamed or Omar, the second Khalif. So Muslims are not the same as Abraham followers.

Again:1- Muslims don't believe in the Trinity. They refer to christian therefore as thritheists and infidels.2- Muslims don't believe in the divinity of Christ. Allah , in Islam, sent ISSA (Jesus in arabic) as his messanger and prophet. Allah is not Jesus Christ nor Jehova.3- How do you deal with 1 John 5:10 and 2 John ? 4- Characteristics of Allah are befitting Jankiz Khan. Is this the same God of Abraham ?

I don't really care much about what Pope John Paul II did,but it is very dangerous to try to excuse him on the basis of a pluralists theory of embracing all faiths.

Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

Again:1- Muslims don't believe in the Trinity. They refer to christian therefore as thritheists and infidels.

Jews don't believe in the Trinity or Jesus as the Son of God, the Messiah, etc. Do you believe that Jews worship the same God as the Christians? I do!

Quote

2- Muslims don't believe in the divinity of Christ. Allah , in Islam, sent ISSA (Jesus in arabic) as his messanger and prophet. Allah is not Jesus Christ nor Jehova.

What I wrote originally is that in courtesy and charity I will accept what a Moslem says when he says that he worships Abraham's God. I have been told by 2 individual Moslems--both Iranians--that they worship the God that the Jews worship. Whether Mohammed got his ideas "out of the blue" or from some Nestorian document that also distorts the nature of the Jesus doesn't matter to me at this point. I must leave that to the scholars. But I know that at least 2 Moslems walking planet earth have effected a self-fulfilling prophecy by proclaiming their belief in the God of Abraham, the very same God that I worship although my faith, the Trinitarian Faith, is the correct faith or more irenically, the Faith in its Fullness. By what right do you contradict them, even given the distorted nature of their religion? [i.e., distorted from the Christian POV]. They have proclaimed a belief in Yahweh, even given that their belief in Yahweh, Abraham's God, is very imperfect, distorted, directed toward wrong ends, etc.

Quote

3- How do you deal with 1 John 5:10 and 2 John ?

Let's ensure we are all on equal ground by providing the complete biblical citations:

Quote

1 John 5:10

10 Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony within himself. Whoever does not believe God has made him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about his Son.

What is there for me to deal with vis-a-vis Moslems? I don't accept their faith or their heresy if you would prefer that I use the latter term. Are you aiming this at the cradle Moslem who may not have had the chance to hear the saving message of the Gospel or has been raised in an environment that makes it nearly impossible in human terms to hear the message in a non-confrontational, objective, and unemotional environment? I assert that he is a captive of his history and society just as you and I are captives to our history and society.

Those of us who are born into Christianity have it easy . . . though we may not boast of it and may not take it for granted. The Christian life is a life of spiritual and corporeal struggle. Those who come to Christianity from outside the faith--and this would apply to Moslems to coming this way--have the tougher road to travel. Just who will God judge the harsher, the infidel who does not make the journey or fails in that journey OR the faithful who neglect the Holy Faith? And what happens when/if we alienate these infidels by our demeanor towards them?

Oh boy, I bet Moslems will just love hearing me call them infidels!

Quote

2John

1 The Presbyter to the chosen Lady and to her children whom I love in truth--and not only I but also all who know the truth-- 2 because of the truth that dwells in us and will be with us forever. 3 Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us from God the Father and from Jesus Christ the Father's Son in truth and love. 4 I rejoiced greatly to find some of your children walking in the truth just as we were commanded by the Father. 5 But now, Lady, I ask you, not as though I were writing a new commandment but the one we have had from the beginning: let us love one another. 6 For this is love, that we walk according to his commandments; this is the commandment, as you heard from the beginning, in which you should walk. 7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh; such is the deceitful one and the antichrist. 8 Look to yourselves that you do not lose what we worked for but may receive a full recompense. 9 Anyone who is so "progressive" as not to remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God; whoever remains in the teaching has the Father and the Son. 10 If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him in your house or even greet him; 11 for whoever greets him shares in his evil works. 12 Although I have much to write to you, I do not intend to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and to speak face to face so that our joy may be complete. 13 The children of your chosen sister send you greetings.

[/color]

OK . . . so I perceive this passage is about those who lack the correct faith or doctrine about the Lord. I recall that this passage is also about the early Gnosticism afflicting the Church. Does Islam have some origin in Gnosticism? I'm not a scholar of the period so I'm not sure. Did the heresy of Nestorianism have something to do with Gnosticism and with Islam? Perhaps. I do recall that Islam conquered (NOT converted) a divided Christian community in the 600-700's.

In any case, Islam does not teach the faith in God correctly. It is distorted from the Christian POV. Well then neither does Judaism, rabbinical or temple worshiping kind. Again, I ask you do the Jews believe in the same God as Christians even without their faith in Jesus Christ? I believe that they do. Abraham is their father and Yahweh is their God.

I at least believe that individual Moslems MAY believe in Yahweh . . . perhaps many . . . perhaps most! A distorted version of Yahweh to be sure . . . but Yahweh, nevertheless, PERHAPS. I have not taken a personal dogmatic position on Islam. The RCC does not (yet) demand it of me. The RCC likely will never demand it of me. And I seriously doubt that Orthodoxy will either. But I will be respectful, courteous, and irenic when the occasion arises. Nevertheless, I will not agree to something that I don't believe in if or when I next get the chance to interact with the Prophet's followers.

I do say one thing, however. If Christians go around to Moslems and say to them that they do not believe in the God of Abraham or that they worship a demon god, then they will never get around to converting them. Conventional wisdom supposedly asserts that it is nearly impossible to convert Muslims. The strictures of their traditional societies seemingly would support this. Yet, I don't think that it is impossible--difficult, yes--but if we start accusing them of worshiping a demon god then we will get nowhere with them!

Quote

4- Characteristics of Allah are befitting Jankiz Khan. Is this the same God of Abraham ?

You have me at a disadvantage. I don't know who Jankiz Khan is?? Genghis Khan perhaps?

By the way, Yahweh ordered the Children of Israel to slaughter the inhabitants of Caanan. And there is plenty of slaughter and violence elsewhere in Holy Writ. The imprecation psalms for example?? Something about smashing babies heads in . . . . If Allah and Yahweh are two different deities, there is at least something in common between them--violence--if one were to take an overly simplistic & fundamentalistic view of Holy Writ.

The important thing for me is that the Koran may be inspired Writ for the Moslems but it isn't for me. I place no faith in it whatsoever. If there is any Truth in it, then that Truth comes from God and not from any "inspiration" the Prophet Mohammed claims. No, I don't believe that the Koran descended from Heaven into Mohammed's hands.

Quote

I don't really care much about what Pope John Paul II did,but it is very dangerous to try to excuse him on the basis of a pluralists theory of embracing all faiths.

Well I care! BTW, do you really think that JP-II worships Allah? Regarding his kissing the Koran, yes, it troubles me but I want to know the whole story first, not that I would ever kiss the Koran myself. This doesn't automatically make him an apostate or great sinner in and of itself. BTW would you or others have objected if he had kissed a Torah scroll? I wouldn't--after all, it is the first 5 books of the Holy Bible! Yes, I know that Jews don't kiss scrolls . . . they don't even allow human hands to touch them directly once they are consecrated to use in the synagogue.

Regarding your statement of a pluralists theory of embracing all faiths-- If by this statement you mean irenicism, then I support JP-II without qualification. This has to do with removing religion as an excuse for violence. If you mean saying that "all faiths are equal and true" then this would be slanderous of JP-II or of me. But I don't necessarily believe that you mean this latter thing. Care to explain what you mean?

As far as faith goes, it would be the Christians. As far as biological sons, mainly the Jews and Arabs, who became muslims. I showed that the muslims are not worshipping the same God as Abraham was worshipping. In fact, before Islam, they were divided among Pagan worshippers, Christians, Jews. Clearly all these groups have no relation to the faith of Muhamed.

Quote

Do you believe that Jews worship the same God as the Christians?

NO, I don't.

Quote

What I wrote originally is that in courtesy and charity I will accept what a Moslem says when he says that he worships Abraham's God.

Thanks for clarifying, I thought this is a dogma in the church or so.

Quote

Are you aiming this at the cradle Moslem who may not have had the chance to hear the saving message of the Gospel or has been raised in an environment that makes it nearly impossible in human terms to hear the message in a non-confrontational, objective, and unemotional environment?

You have a point and I have no way of knowing how God will punish muslims. But this has little to do with our discussion as we are discussing the faith of muslims and how it related to christians. IMO, they don't worship the same God, and this is enough for me.Without opening another subject, muslims are also not saved. I believe that everybody gets the message and gets to hear the Gospel. being captive to one's environment or else is not an excuse.Many muslims, about 6 millions in Africa alone, according to AL-Jazeera network, are converting to christianity. Islam, when you get to read more about it, is a brutal, violent and unhuman religion, and anybody who really cares for the truth will reject it, and search for the real God. I am sure God will lead the way of this person seeking after Him to embrace christianity.

Quote

They have proclaimed a belief in Yehwa, even given that their belief in Yahweh, Abraham's God, is very imperfect, distorted, directed toward wrong ends, etc.

No, they don't. Ask any muslim clergy whether he believes in Yahewa, and he will rely with a simple no. Would you also assume that those who don't follow any religion, yet worship the unknown God, are worshippers of Yehwa?

Quote

Those of us who are born into Christianity have it easy

Yes, it is a great gift. But, it is by far easy in the West, I would not call the life of christians in Islamic countries as easy, at all. You have to live in Turkey, Egypt,Iran or Yemen as a christian to know how difficult it is to be christian. It is the christianity in which the Cross is carried each and every day.

Quote

Those who come to Christianity from outside the faith--and this would apply to Moslems to coming this way--have the tougher road to travel.

I agree, I would add that muslims in particular have a very hard road if they convert to christianity. But we are not talking about converts right now, we talk about the muslims as practicing it and believing in Islam.

Quote

Just who will God judge the harsher, the infidel who does not make the journey or fails in that journey OR the faithful who neglect the Holy Faith? And what happens when/if we alienate these infidels by our demeanor towards them?

Two points:-God will judge those who neglected his gift harsher.-I am not advocating mistreatment of the unbelievers.But if you imply that we should appease them, then I strongly disagree. Away from the Pope's incident, would it not be easier if the martyrs did not die for the faith or offered incense to the idols, kissed their statues and confessed that they respect the Pagan worshippers faith ? Love the unbelievers, but don't compromise the faith.

Quote

I recall that this passage is also about the early Gnosticism afflicting the Church. Does Islam have some origin in Gnosticism

And it can be applied to anybody who does not confess the incarnation or the divinity of Christ, among them muslims, buddists, JW,.....

Quote

I do recall that Islam conquered (NOT converted) a divided Christian community in the 600-700's.

Yes, it conquered a deeply divided christian Byzantine Empire. It was one of these incidents in history where all the circumstances were lining up to help the Muslims.

Quote

Did the heresy of Nestorianism have something to do with Gnosticism and with Islam?

Issa (Jesus) in Islam is a figure which is not easily described. It is more befitting the Arian heresy, but sometimes some Nestorian effects come into play, where he is clearly divine and then merely human. I explained in a post before in another thread the origin of Islam and its relation to christian heresies in more details.

Quote

If Christians go around to Moslems and say to them that they do not believe in the God of Abraham or that they worship a demon god, then they will never get around to converting them. Conventional wisdom supposedly asserts that it is nearly impossible to convert Muslims.

I agree with you, ridiculing somebody's belief is not the way to convert him. Explaining christianity to them and the fact that we are not polytheists will help them listen to you. Muslim clergy and media tarnish the image of christianity without giving an equal chance to christians to respond and defend christianity in the Muslim countries.

My concern is more the other christians who don't study Islam and they just believe whatever is presented in the media. (I don't mean you specifically, this is in a general sense). The liberal media wants this big group hug, and we should refuse to do so.

Quote

. But I will be respectful, courteous, and irenic when the occasion arises. Nevertheless, I will not agree to something that I don't believe in if or when I next get the chance to interact with the Prophet's followers

Very wise approach.

Quote

BTW, do you really think that JP-II worships Allah?

Of course not. I didn't give any opinion about the Pope kissing the Quran, and I just entered the discussion when I found something wrong about Islam.

Quote

Regarding his kissing the Koran, yes, it troubles me but I want to know the whole story first, not that I would ever kiss the Koran myself

Well, I think the problem is not with this single act, whether it is out of courtesy or for any other reason. I think this topic from the beginning was pointing towards discussing Pope's Infallability doctrine and other Papacy claims like the doctrinal development and so on. Because if you are uneasy with the picture, you would have to reconsider such dogmas.

Quote

You have me at a disadvantage. I don't know who Jankiz Khan is?? Genghis Khan perhaps?

I spelled it as I pronounce it, so please excuse my English. It is Genghis Khan, the famous Mongul leader.

Quote

If Allah and Yahweh are two different deities, there is at least something in common between them--violence--if one were to take an overly simplistic & fundamentalistic view of Holy Writ.

You don't have to take an oversimplistic view. Compare the circumstances, the orders and the reasons why the masacres were undertaken in both cases, and come to an educated conclusion. Did Judaism spread with the sword ? Did christianity take the way of wars to spread christianity ? Never. Even the Crusades were not christian wars, they took the Cross as a cover.In the Quran, it is a clear order to kill the christians, Jews and all other non-muslim wherever they are, unless they pay a tribute.

Quote

If by this statement you mean irenicism, then I support JP-II without qualification.

We are told to live in peace with all unbelievers, but without compromising the faith. I didn;t mean to make any slanderous comments about Pope John Paul II or the catholic church. I just wanted to make sure that Islam is understood correctly. As I told you, I am not praticularly interested in this incident as much as in the dogmas of Pope Infallability, which would be exposed if he acted in a wrong way in any incident concerning the faith.

Sorry for the long post.Peace,Stavro

Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)

Is Patriarch Parthenos the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Alexandria ? When did he held office ? I am Coptic Orthodox, lived a good portion of my life between Alexadria and Cairo in Egypt, never ever heard of such incident which would have received its share of publicity in our Islamic Media. Granted that the Chalcedonian are a very small minority in Egypt, it would still be major news.

Yes, I was referring to the Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria (sorry for not clarifying this earlier). Go to the following links for online references to the shameful remarks of this Patriarch for a preliminary look:

If this is not satisfactory, then let me know and I will dig out the exact reference wherein Parthenios is said to have claimed these things--because I have this reference in a couple of books at home. What this Patriarch said was indeed downright shameful. I know we say that we Orthodox can speak out against our hierarchs who do such things, and I suppose that such hierarchs could (at least in theory) be deposed. However, as James has said, Parthenios concluded his life peacefully and without consequence, uninterruptedly occupying the (Chalcedonian) See of Alexandria. Sure, the Monks of the Holy Mountain vigorously protested; but, nothing was done. Sadly to say, as usual, their voices went unheeded. So, in practice, I really don't see the difference (from a practical POV) between modern Orthodox practice and Roman practice on this account (although the theories may differ). We Orthodox say a hierarch can be deposed for heresy; but, what good is this possibility or potential if this option is not actually exercised when a heretic occupies a see?

Now surely, I don't condone or defend the Pope of Rome kissing the Quran. IMO, it was a shameful act. I think, however, before we "bust the RC's chops" about alleged complacency WRT a Quran-kissing-Pope, we need to come to terms with our own complacency regarding a now-deceased Mohammed-venerating-Patriarch. In both cases, a clamor was raised by conservative voices within each community; however, the respective hierarch retain(s/ed) office--without a single inquiry.

Also, I conclude by reiterating the fact that whatever the Assisi events involved (Frobie provided some "interesting" photos), our Orthodox hierarchs were right there sitting at the same campfire. So IF AND ONLY IF Assisi was a big ecumenical "kumbaya," then again, we Orthodox are not in a position to criticize the RCC without first addressing the fact that a goodly amount of Orthodox hierarchs attended both festivities, and still occupy their sees without incident.